- From: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 15:13:48 +0100
- To: Dan Brickley <Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: James Tauber <JTauber@bowstreet.com>, "'www-rdf-interest@w3.org'" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
At 02:47 PM 9/11/00 +0100, Dan Brickley wrote:
>I tried to characterise this with reference to the Cambridge Communique
>in saturday's msg:
>
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Sep/0091.html
Yes... I noticed that after drafting my comment.
> [...]
> The thing that we need to be most careful about is talk of turning
> 'any arbitrary XML into RDF', as if there were a sole, simple
> answer to
> this challenge. ('Colloquial XML' is one phrase I've heard used btw).
> I can think of lots of RDF-ifications of any chunk of 'colloquial'
> XML. In
> particular, two broad categories: one where we reflect infoset
> constructs directly into RDF, another where we reflect the
> XML-encoded "application data structures" into RDF without preserving
> details of that encoding.
> [...]
>
>Does some such distinction help at all? Both are good things to aim for,
>but confusing them endangers both efforts...
I think it is good that we recognize the distinction.
Personally, I tend to think of the former as maybe of limited value --
describing and reasoning about the structure of XML documents. I see the
latter as an interesting topic.
#g
------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Monday, 11 September 2000 14:50:37 UTC